The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

````

[mrswah]

A monster was trying to save his backside. He gave the best story he could. Who knows how many lies it ccontained but he said what he said for a very clear reason. To escape a murder conviction. Any holes in the story are because he took a life and then he was caught out!

How can you know for certain why he told the story he did?

[[...]]

I understand why Nine concentrates on CJ, and I don't believe for a moment that he/she intends to be disrespectful, or that he/she  believes CJ is anything other than innocent.

We don't know very much about VT, or Tanja, or Joanna, or Greg, but CJ knew all of them, and, by all accounts, he took an interest in his tenants, and in  how they looked after his properties. I find it difficult to believe that Joanna was murdered in her flat, and that VT transported her body from one flat to another, placed it in his car boot, and CJ heard and saw nothing. He is a conscientious Neighbourhood Watch member, and it doesn't surprise me that he noticed people near Joanna's flat.

On a much lighter note, and one that, no doubt, will make you all sigh with relief, I am going away next week, and will have very limited time to moderate the forum.

Poor Myster!!!

Thank you for that explanation mrswah.... I am not quite so eliquant..

[mrswah]

West Memphis 3, I thought it was one of your interests? I heard from Bob Ruff about a new doc and evidence that’s all?

Not sure if there is a thread on this topic . Will look later. if not, Nine could always start one??

[mrswah]

Thank you for that explanation mrswah.... I am not quite so eliquant..

you're welcome!

[mrswah]

Oh... ok..... I have had interests in many things, I have watched documentaries on many cases etc.... But these days i am not interested in these documenatries... They may highlight peoples plights, but they also colour peoples views....

I know some good work has come from such programs.... But differentiating between the myriad of programs and their intentions, it difficult to view... I have stopped watching all programs of that context, I no longer want to view such programs, I prefer to watch re-runs of old Detective programs knowing its content is fiction....

The Disappearance of Charlene Downes... case... one that has been on TV recently, someone recommended I watched it.... and i don't wish too.... I do not need to I have no opinion on that case.....

The only case I have a strong opinion on is this case... Whether I am correct, I have searched in vain for answers...

Documentaries highlighting injustice, can be useful for the public to understand injustice occurs, but it has now become fodder for the masses in which they can keep their suspicions firmly pointed in the direction of the accused....

Whilst making said presenter a house hold name, and people trusting said people based on what they believe they know of that person, because of the frequency they have seen them on TV....

Trust developed by exposure.... When qualifications of said people and their expertise on cases, really should be of more importance...

But the public are fickle, the public are easily pleased, the public will without question take on board their favourite presenters point of view and run with it as gospel....

So no... I no longer watch such programs, I have no interest in them, I have learnt that I should question what is fed to me... And even if my own conclusions are incorrect, I at least tried to understand the basis of what had been presented...

Are such programs really about highlighting a persons plight, or more to do with money making?  Does the money generated by such programs go to either the victims of the horrendous crimes or the defence of the accused whom may in fact be innocent?

So I take these program with a pinch of salt these days.... And no longer try to believe a program may highlight the plight of a convicted person or victim...

A programs intentions, like anything is about generating money, and audience participation, in viewing said program, whilst advertising generates even more money....


Now hears a thought.... Any media that generate money from the coverage, of any trial, should give  the money to the victims etc etc...

Any media publication maybe should not be allowed to advertise products or services on these said stories... maybe that is a way forward...


You all know in the early time of me being on here i did contact someone whom was in the industry, the response i do not need to repeat, but it only highlights to me how these programs are about money and not truth and justice...

A healthy warning should be placed on these reconstructions etc... to advise in no uncertain terms to the viewer that it is not all fact... but an interpretation of the facts...

As for the WM3.. the conclusion came with their release, the remaking of anything to do with that case is for the entertainment of the public and the money it will generate..

So I do not need to see another rehash of that case, similarly with Ted buddy, or Netflix's MaCanns story... A case , i do not know enough about.... But money is generated and I'm sure many have an opinion on that case....

I had hoped by coming here i could highlight what i saw as inconsistencies within this case, but i have no expertise or legal knowledge and hoped that someone here would...

So even if someone made a program about this case, i do not know if i would watch it.... I do not know how I feel any longer about the use of television as a source of exposing such cases, as they tend to be biased one way or the other...

If nothing else this case has taught me to question, it has taught me not to accept what a TV program may tell me, but it has also given an insight by seeing and hearing the words spoke by individuals at the centre of this case....

I suppose people will continue to make money out of others misery, I am not here to make money... I as a citizen felt I wanted to question this case... But there appears to be no way in which to achieve this correctly..

I do not want to be famous... some remarked infamous... But maybe thats to do with me rocking the boat....  No 15 minutes of fame for me, no TV programs for me.... No interviews given by me, unless someone wishes to count what I have stated here....

But that I have no control over.... This case is not about me, or making money, this case is about fair... This case should be about the correct application of justice...

I understand the media need to sell their papers, and i do not have a real answer in which they favour their readers... But maybe it's about time they had an accreditation or something along said lines... where what they report can be trusted.... I don't know...

Or just leave it as it is, and allow people to make their own judgements as to what they may believe is fake news or not...

So no Real justice... I have no interest in programs that are made or have been made about real crime as it is called, any longer....

Programs should be made for the correct reason and not for money.... But as always, it's money that makes the world go round...

It just depends on how much money anyone believes they need or deserve...

So responsible programming may help, and not censorship.... But a clearly defined discrpition of what the program will achieve, and that it is entertainment at the end of the day, and whom ever presents such programs do it out of their own agenda's and not maybe for the good of the victims or families involved or portrayed...

That is why I laughed at Dayle Hinman... Does someone who's life was about law enforcement have to make a name for herself by appearing in programs to bolster said conviction of anyone, by explaining her role or the role of others...

So no... I take with a pinch of salt these so called experts whom are there for self promotion (imo) and not really about their concerns for true justice.....


Does that answer your question?

IMO, it's a shame to concentrate on only one case. There are so many interesting ones out there!

[[...]]

Not sure if there is a thread on this topic . Will look later. if not, Nine could always start one??

I do not wish to start a topic on that subject... and I no longer need to say anything really, it has all been already stated...

So Poor Myster will be in the safe knowledge i will not be upsetting him/her in any way once you have gone... And therefore I need no longer upset anyone else... Sorry if my intentions have been misconstrued...

I will forever on my own have the concerns I have , and everyone one else can be happy with the knowledge they are happy with...

[jixy]

How can you know for certain why he told the story he did?

And how can you ? you and nine keep on about it but never say why he would lie if he didnt do it?  is that the best you can do? really?

Jo made it home to her flat and she was found dead. Someone killed her. You based all you think of the 'story' he told to try and save himself. For all you know he used any method to get to her but that wouldnt fit with his manslaughter attempt now would it

He had to make it sound a bit hearts and flowers and then followed by a big ooops, i really didnt mean it!

[[...]]

IMO, it's a shame to concentrate on only one case. There are so many interesting ones out there!

There maybe mrswah... But I have wasted enough of my time on this case getting nowhere... Why waste anymore of my time on others....

Maybe everyone else can highlight the cases they have an interest in... I believe I have said enough.....

[APRIL]

... But I have wasted enough of my time on this case getting nowhere...... I believe I have said enough.....

Repetition, repetition, repetition!!

[mrswah]

And how can you ? you and nine keep on about it but never say why he would lie if he didnt do it?  is that the best you can do? really?

Jo made it home to her flat and she was found dead. Someone killed her. You based all you think of the 'story' he told to try and save himself. For all you know he used any method to get to her but that wouldnt fit with his manslaughter attempt now would it

He had to make it sound a bit hearts and flowers and then followed by a big ooops, i really didnt mean it!

No, as you point out, I can't know either. Just differing opinions!!

[jixy]

No, as you point out, I can't know either. Just differing opinions!!

But yours makes no sense. The posts keep piling up with mad sceneries plucked from god knows where but still you can't say why he would lie and why your presumed Mr easy going nice guy would be covering for someone anyone so we have to read the drivel that he doesn't in fact exist. Kind of kills the debate

[Real justice]

I understand why Nine concentrates on CJ, and I don't believe for a moment that he/she intends to be disrespectful, or that he/she  believes CJ is anything other than innocent.

We don't know very much about VT, or Tanja, or Joanna, or Greg, but CJ knew all of them, and, by all accounts, he took an interest in his tenants, and in  how they looked after his properties. I find it difficult to believe that Joanna was murdered in her flat, and that VT transported her body from one flat to another, placed it in his car boot, and CJ heard and saw nothing. He is a conscientious Neighbourhood Watch member, and it doesn't surprise me that he noticed people near Joanna's flat.

On a much lighter note, and one that, no doubt, will make you all sigh with relief, I am going away next week, and will have very limited time to moderate the forum.

Poor Myster!!!

Have a nice break mrswah, can’t you take Nine with you 

[Real justice]

Oh... ok..... I have had interests in many things, I have watched documentaries on many cases etc.... But these days i am not interested in these documenatries... They may highlight peoples plights, but they also colour peoples views....

I know some good work has come from such programs.... But differentiating between the myriad of programs and their intentions, it difficult to view... I have stopped watching all programs of that context, I no longer want to view such programs, I prefer to watch re-runs of old Detective programs knowing its content is fiction....

The Disappearance of Charlene Downes... case... one that has been on TV recently, someone recommended I watched it.... and i don't wish too.... I do not need to I have no opinion on that case.....

The only case I have a strong opinion on is this case... Whether I am correct, I have searched in vain for answers...

Documentaries highlighting injustice, can be useful for the public to understand injustice occurs, but it has now become fodder for the masses in which they can keep their suspicions firmly pointed in the direction of the accused....

Whilst making said presenter a house hold name, and people trusting said people based on what they believe they know of that person, because of the frequency they have seen them on TV....

Trust developed by exposure.... When qualifications of said people and their expertise on cases, really should be of more importance...

But the public are fickle, the public are easily pleased, the public will without question take on board their favourite presenters point of view and run with it as gospel....

So no... I no longer watch such programs, I have no interest in them, I have learnt that I should question what is fed to me... And even if my own conclusions are incorrect, I at least tried to understand the basis of what had been presented...

Are such programs really about highlighting a persons plight, or more to do with money making?  Does the money generated by such programs go to either the victims of the horrendous crimes or the defence of the accused whom may in fact be innocent?

So I take these program with a pinch of salt these days.... And no longer try to believe a program may highlight the plight of a convicted person or victim...

A programs intentions, like anything is about generating money, and audience participation, in viewing said program, whilst advertising generates even more money....


Now hears a thought.... Any media that generate money from the coverage, of any trial, should give  the money to the victims etc etc...

Any media publication maybe should not be allowed to advertise products or services on these said stories... maybe that is a way forward...


You all know in the early time of me being on here i did contact someone whom was in the industry, the response i do not need to repeat, but it only highlights to me how these programs are about money and not truth and justice...

A healthy warning should be placed on these reconstructions etc... to advise in no uncertain terms to the viewer that it is not all fact... but an interpretation of the facts...

As for the WM3.. the conclusion came with their release, the remaking of anything to do with that case is for the entertainment of the public and the money it will generate..

So I do not need to see another rehash of that case, similarly with Ted buddy, or Netflix's MaCanns story... A case , i do not know enough about.... But money is generated and I'm sure many have an opinion on that case....

I had hoped by coming here i could highlight what i saw as inconsistencies within this case, but i have no expertise or legal knowledge and hoped that someone here would...

So even if someone made a program about this case, i do not know if i would watch it.... I do not know how I feel any longer about the use of television as a source of exposing such cases, as they tend to be biased one way or the other...

If nothing else this case has taught me to question, it has taught me not to accept what a TV program may tell me, but it has also given an insight by seeing and hearing the words spoke by individuals at the centre of this case....

I suppose people will continue to make money out of others misery, I am not here to make money... I as a citizen felt I wanted to question this case... But there appears to be no way in which to achieve this correctly..

I do not want to be famous... some remarked infamous... But maybe thats to do with me rocking the boat....  No 15 minutes of fame for me, no TV programs for me.... No interviews given by me, unless someone wishes to count what I have stated here....

But that I have no control over.... This case is not about me, or making money, this case is about fair... This case should be about the correct application of justice...

I understand the media need to sell their papers, and i do not have a real answer in which they favour their readers... But maybe it's about time they had an accreditation or something along said lines... where what they report can be trusted.... I don't know...

Or just leave it as it is, and allow people to make their own judgements as to what they may believe is fake news or not...

So no Real justice... I have no interest in programs that are made or have been made about real crime as it is called, any longer....

Programs should be made for the correct reason and not for money.... But as always, it's money that makes the world go round...

It just depends on how much money anyone believes they need or deserve...

So responsible programming may help, and not censorship.... But a clearly defined discrpition of what the program will achieve, and that it is entertainment at the end of the day, and whom ever presents such programs do it out of their own agenda's and not maybe for the good of the victims or families involved or portrayed...

That is why I laughed at Dayle Hinman... Does someone who's life was about law enforcement have to make a name for herself by appearing in programs to bolster said conviction of anyone, by explaining her role or the role of others...

So no... I take with a pinch of salt these so called experts whom are there for self promotion (imo) and not really about their concerns for true justice.....


Does that answer your question?

I didn’t catch that, what was it you said?

[Caroline]

I would have expected Vinnie to have said a lot more than what was "already out there", if he murdered Joanna and, of course, if he was telling the truth on the stand. There is always stuff that is known to the murderer but not to the public.

Well, you should be suspicious that he didn't. This kind of shows he was lying, telling only enough to cover him for manslaughter. He's not going to tell anything that might reveal who he REALLY is.